I would like to thank WilliamsP for accepting this debate. In this debate, I will be arguing that objective morality does not exist, while my opponent will be arguing that morality is objective and not relative.

Arguments

To begin, I want to, again, quote my opponent: “Morality is objective because it is founded on fact. Opinions, contrary to the belief of Pro, can also be founded upon facts. Evolution is not accepted by everyone yet it is still FACT." I will begin my talking about opinion.

Wikipedia says this about opinion: opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective, i.e. based on that which is less than absolutely certain, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts.

I say this:

There are two types of opinions:1. External Opinions2. Internal Opinions

External opinions are, as my opponent said, things like evolution. It is a fact, however not everyone accepts it. Internal opinions are like saying “Pizza is good.” Whether pizza is actually delicious is an internal opinion, for it cannot be proven. Evolution, the example my opponent used, is an external opinion, for it can be proven but not everyone believes it. Evolution is a fact, but can still be titled 'opinion'. Now, making this statement to other people, they still say that morality is factual. Then, I make the next statement: "Morality is chemical and different across all people." They refuse to believe that morality is only chemical. They think it is more than just a function in the brain. I am going to prove that incorrect, for I am sure my opponent is not on my side with this.Morality is strictly chemical. It is strictly a chemical reaction occuring within the limbic system - Nothing more, nothing less. This is a proven fact that my opponent simply cannot deny. No matter how much he wants to deny this, there is no rulebook of morals. Yes, there are laws, but those laws were picked by people, not some divine creator.

Now, let's talk about moral opinions. I have met people who would find it very immoral to steal $1 from a generally wealthy man. I, on the other hand, would not find it very unethical, for it is only $1. This difference in morals is direct proof that not everyone has the same levels of morality. Because of this, morality is not factual. If my opponent still believes it is, then I would like him to give me proof - chemical, physical proof - that morality is objective.

ConclusionIn conclusion, I look forward to my opponent's arguments. I hope to also change his mind on the matter, for I truly believe I am correct.

IntroductionI would like to begin by thanking my opponent for arguments. I already have strong opposition to his view and I would love to make rebuttals, but the rules do not permit that. Rebuttals are in the next round. I acknowledge my opponent's definitions.

Arguments I would like to begin by defining morality. What is it? According to Wikipedia, 'morality' is "the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong)." The article continues with a statement that would actually support my opponent's stance, but I believe we must explore morality further before one can make the claim that it is relative.

I will argue that morality, contrary to my opponent's belief, is objective. I acknowledge my opponent's definitions of opinions - external and internal - and I will keep those in mind while arguing. I will argue that morality is an external opinion, thus being objective. I will provide an example of morality below.

Person A asks person B, "Is murder immoral?" Person B responds with, "Yes, it is." Person C responds with, "No, it is not." The opinions of B and C vary in this scenario, but that does not change the fact that murder is in fact immoral. Murder is taking another's life. It does not change the fact that the victim did nothing wrong. It does not change the fact that the victim was innocent. Whether two people have the same or different opinion, that victim still lost his or her life. Thus, it is immoral.

"The basis of ethics is causality: everything has consequences, and so do actions. Actions have consequences, and our role is to find those consequences and act accordingly," says strongatheism.net. Morality, I believe, is also the acknowledgement of these potential consequences and acting to prevent them. This is accomplished by having a code of ethics. Morality is objective. It is not relative simply because opinions of people vary. Morality is objective because the moral, right stance has a sane, logical argument while the immoral, incorrect stance fails at presenting facts.

My opponent challenges me to provide chemical, physical proof that morality is objective. I do not feel the need to; it can be explained simply through words, not an infinintely long bibliography or a large arsenal of scientific evidence. Logic is key. Common sense is the foundation. The proper strategy will eventually reveal the truth.

I believe I made a sufficient argument. I patiently await my opponent's response and I will then refute his points.

I would like to start by thanking my opponent for giving me his arguments. I accept his definition of morality, however I do not accept his stance on the matter. I intend to prove that in this round.

Rebuttals

"Person A asks person B, "Is murder immoral?" Person B responds with, "Yes, it is." Person C responds with, "No, it is not." The opinions of B and C vary in this scenario, but that does not change the fact that murder is in fact immoral.""Whether two people have the same or different opinion, that victim still lost his or her life. Thus, it is immoral."

In these statements, my opponent has neglected to give an argument. He has given an example, but can only back it up using his opinion. He says it "does not change the fact that murder is in fact immoral", however he doesn't say why it is immoral besides his own opinion. This is also the case when he said "[t]hus, it is immoral." Again, he made a statement but has not backed it up with proof.

"Morality is objective. It is not relative simply because opinions of people vary. Morality is objective because the moral, right stance has a sane, logical argument while the immoral, incorrect stance fails at presenting facts."

Again, my opponent makes the claim that morality is the "right stance" and that immoral acts are the "incorrect stance", but does not give evidence to back his claim up. Then, my opponent says morality "fails at presenting facts". I do not understand what facts are there to be presented by immorality. There are none. As I said before, there is no proof of the "right" morality, which leads me to my next refutation:

"My opponent challenges me to provide chemical, physical proof that morality is objective. I do not feel the need to; it can be explained simply through words, not an infinintely long bibliography or a large arsenal of scientific evidence. Logic is key. Common sense is the foundation. The proper strategy will eventually reveal the truth."

My opponent has failed to give me evidence of moral objectivity beyond his own personal opinions. He tells me he does not need to prove morality. This is simply because he cannot prove it. There is no evidence to back up the claim that it is immoral to kill or rape. The only thing stopping me from killing or raping is my personal morals; my personal beliefs.

Conclusion

In conclusion, my opponent has given no viable proof that morality is objective, while I have shown that there is no proof of morality. I have shown that morals are strictly opinion and not fact. It is now time for my opponent to lay out his arguments. I patiently await them.

IntroductionI would like to begin by thanking jamccartney for responding. When I read his rebuttals, I considered his view, but concluded it was incorrect. I will begin by refuting his rebuttals of my statements and then I will attack his main argument of the second round.

Rebuttals "In these statements, my opponent has neglected to give an argument. He has given an example, but can only back it up using his opinion," states my opponent. I believe my opponent misunderstood me. I feel he did not receive the message I attempted to send. Both my opponent and I believe in the preciousness of life. It can be backed up with plenty of proof. such as the fact that we are the only species of our intelligence in the solar system - to our knowledge, at least. I believe my argument was implied. As I said myself, "

"Again, my opponent makes the claim that morality is the "right stance" and that immoral acts are the "incorrect stance", but does not give evidence to back his claim up. Then, my opponent says [im]morality "fails at presenting facts". I do not understand what facts are there to be presented by immorality. There are none. As I said before, there is no proof of the "right" morality..." I do not understand how my opponent could possibly not understand the statement I placed before him. Contrary to my opponent's belief, morality can be founded upon facts as well as opinions. Therefore, I have made a change to the resolution of this debate:

Morality can be both an external and internal opinion - objective and relative. I have now only begun to realize that both my opponent and I are somewhat wrong. Morality is relative when it comes to stealing a single dollar or something of that sort. It is objective when it comes to crimes made illegal by the law.

In my opponent's previous debate about this topic, he said, "I think what the Nazis did to the Jews during the Holocaust was immoral, but the Nazis did not. If you look at it from their perspective, they were doing God's bidding, for they had "Gott Mit Uns" inscribed on their belts, which translates to "God With Us." Though I, and I assume my opponent as well, thinks the Holocaust was wrong, it was technically not because not everyone thought it was wrong. The only reason we can criticize them is because they were breaking the laws that certain people put into place because they thought the laws were moral." I, as a native German, know much more about this topic and I can say that his statement here is untrue. The "God Mit Uns" is just propaganda. The Nazis were not doing God's bidding. They were exterminating the Jews because Adolf Hitler wanted a pure German society, the Ayran race, which is a topic for another time.

"In conclusion, my opponent has given no viable proof that morality is objective, while I have shown that there is no proof of morality. I have shown that morals are strictly opinion and not fact." Morality has proof. Con just has not put effort into finding that proof.

"Now, let's talk about moral opinions. I have met people who would find it very immoral to steal $1 from a generally wealthy man. I, on the other hand, would not find it very unethical, for it is only $1. This difference in morals is direct proof that not everyone has the same levels of morality. Because of this, morality is not factual." This statement actually fits my opponent's definition of 'external opinions'. My opponent himself said, "External opinions are, as my opponent said, things like evolution. It is a fact, however not everyone accepts it." Morality is a provable fact.

If my opponent still believes that ALL morality is relative, I must say, I believe he lacks sanity on this issue. Please do not view this as an insult or a motion to offend my opponent. It is a true belief of mine.

Because morality can be both objective and relative - objective most of the time - my opponent and I are both wrong being on the Con and Pro sides, respectively. I urge the voters to take this into consideration.

I did rush this argument a little, so please do not pick apart everything I say. Please accept my view and simply vote fairly. That is all I ask. This debate was interesting and I await the first votes to be placed.

Reasons for voting decision: Con had used more sources in his argument helping out his case. I'd like to note to both canidates that Wikipeadia is not a creditable source. If you want to use Wikipeadia use the sources it has footnoted. Con wins arguments due to the dropped argument.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.